Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Latigo v Oyaro (Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1010 (29 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed a preliminary objection seeking to strike out a reply affidavit filed late in an application for leave to appeal out of time.
Senyonjo v Wakiso District Local Government Council & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 232 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 171 (17 October 2024)
The court found that the Respondents filed their affidavits-in-reply out of time without seeking leave of court, contrary to the mandatory requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Respondents failed to provide sufficient reason for the delay or to justify an extension of time. The invocation of Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not excuse disregard for procedural rules unless circumstances warrant, which was not demonstrated in this case. The court also held that the 2nd Respondent, as Speaker of the Local Government Council, is an administrative official subject to judicial re…
Source excerpt
Ngobi v Orishaba (Miscellaneous Application 130 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 615 (29 May 2024)
The court found that the Respondents were in contempt of the court order dated 3rd March 2023, which unambiguously directed the unconditional release of the Applicant's motor vehicle. The Respondents had effective notice of the order, as evidenced by their advocates' presence in court and subsequent correspondence. The Respondents failed to comply with the order, and their explanations did not justify non-compliance, especially since the criminal case for which the vehicle was detained had been dismissed. The court emphasized that unconditional release meant the order was to be effected absol…
Source excerpt
Emirates Safaris v The Development Analyst (Miscellaneous Application 458 of 2022) [2022] UGCommC 178 (19 November 2022)
The court held that the strict timelines under Order 12 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to affidavits in reply in miscellaneous applications, especially where the affidavit constitutes evidence rather than a pleading. The Respondent filed the affidavit before the hearing date, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would result from its consideration. The court adopted the reasoning in Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University, emphasizing that affidavits in reply should be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing, and technicalities should not defea…
Source excerpt
